User talk:Zythe/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Hey, sorry for the late reply. Hmm, lots of good stuff but a little rushed. My friend pointed out, and I think he's right, that it felt more like a "previously on" than a well-paced issue. Very jumpy and chaotic. "Predators and Prey" was badly organised in terms of the bigger picture, and there was a weird plot gap between that and this. Buffy: "OMG, four vampires are attacking, where are my Veronica Mars DVDs?" / Buffy: "OMG, the whole world's against us, we've never faced such danger! We must run." Say what? Buffy and Giles' talk about Willow was both nostalgic and relevant, and the Oz reveal was classic. I think it'll get better, hopefully the Bad Times are over.  Paul  730 00:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confident "Retreat" will shape up to be a good arc, but "P&P" left scars on the series that haven't healed yet. It wasn't bad, just very unfocused and inconsequential. I kind of want them to dial it all down a little and focus on the main characters again, which is the direction they seem to be heading in. Yeah, I read "Always Darkest" and loved it. Those three pages alone were better than anything #21 - 25 had to offer.

Did you buy Angel #23? A lot of people jumped ship during Aftermath, including me, but the Gunn epilogue is well worth getting. Gunn and Illyria make a surprisingly effective double act. Are you going to follow the Spike ongoing? I'm looking forward to it. Oh, and how amazing was Torchwood? :D  Paul  730 21:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I stopped buying the Aftermath issues but I'll likely buy the HC for completists sake. The Angel ongoing doesn't interest me anymore, I'm sure they'll be some good stories here and there (the Dru issues look cool) but the series isn't being handled well IMO. Some quality stories, but poor organisation and no long-term direction. I'll keep buying it, but I don't view it as canon like AtF or S8, it's just an expanded universe comic now. The Spike ongoing sounds genuinely interesting, I think it'll be good for Lynch to have total freedom with the character, he's always handled Spike better than Angel anyway.

I've always disliked the Janto pairing, it's always seemed more like slashy fanservice than a legitimate relationship. It's being handled better now, but in S1 it was very juvenile ("Look, men kissing!!!"). All the "made for each other" rubbish annoys me, it's like the fans will lap up any gay relationship no matter how half-baked it is. The one-sided element actually makes it more tragic and real IMO. The "coming out" scene was nice, though like you, I was disappointed it contradicted that lovely quote from the novels. Children of Earth certainly seems like the best written Torchwood story so far. I liked the Rupesh mislead as well, it was a little too predictable that he was the new medic, so it was nice to have that subverted.  Paul  730 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I much prefer Gwen and Rhys to Gwen/Jack. They have a more natural chemistry, whereas Gwen/Jack feels rather forced. I'm all for keeping Gwen/Rhys complicated though. Yeah, I think all the love story crap about Jack and Ianto completing each other is bullshit. Very little of that was apparent in the show, we just got random scenes of them shagging or talking about shagging. I just think it's pretty pathetic how crazy some of the fans are about the pairing. You saw the reaction when we added anti-Janto info to Wikipedia. Hopefully they'll break up in Children of Earth, just to shatter everyone's dreams. :)  Paul  730 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It might be best to mention all of them, tbh. This is something I discussed with Bignole regarding the Clark article, and he thought it best to mention all the books. On the other hand, we don't mention every episode he appears in. If they're just monster-of-the-week style stories where Jack has little development, we can just mention the title in passing without going into plot details. So long as we cover the series of novels, we might not have to bother with individual titles unless they're particularly notable. You seem to be handling it well, by discussing the original information that the books provide. Quick question though; do the "Monster Files" belong in a literature section? It looks a little tacked on. Could we maybe expand this into an "Online" section? And what about that comedy DW episode you sent me a while back?  Paul  730 10:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I was working at Halloween (franchise)#Comic books, Bignole encouraged me to create a new "Online" section, and that was for downloadable short stories. It seems like the best place for the Monster Files. That layout you describe seems great. And that Tonight's the Night thing would be fine in reception I think, since it was more of a sketch than an official appearance.  Paul  730 11:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that episode was brilliant. I was impressed they had the stones to kill off another main character, and I hope it sticks. Rather amused that Ianto is dead, because it pisses off the fans (wow, I'm totally evil), but it was done very well. I like that he died realizing his insignificance to Jack. His article is in pretty solid shape already, I don't know how much we'll be able to expand it, since he's not as iconic as Jack. Presumably they'll be the usual accusations of homophobia that follow whenever an LGBT character dies, which might make a good addition.  Paul  730 23:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm quite impressed with the TW articles. They're all tidy, if a little skinny. This series of TW has felt much more mature than others, do you agree? Less indulgent smut, more social commentary and strong characterisation. It finally feels like the "adult" show it's meant to be. The scene with the politicians debating what to do was fascinating, and that comes from someone with zero interest in politics. I hope your spoilers don't indicate I'm going to be disappointed tomorrow? :(  Paul  730 23:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the late reply, my internet went down over the weekend.

Lol, is that you just finding out about "Ricstar"? Do you read X-Factor? I'm a big Madrox fanboy, but I don't really like Rictor. As depowered mutants go, he's one of the better written, but he's still the most boring character in the book. Maybe the Shatterstar relationship will spice him up a bit. Apparently Shatterstar's creator is furious, because he's a "warrior" and therefore can't be gay. What did you think of the final part of Torchwood?  Paul  730 08:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you see David's response? He compared Liefeld to those parents who are tolerant of gays, but not when they're their own children. Other people have suggested Shatterstar was his author surrogate, which is why he's so offended. He's not doing himself any favours with this kind of rubbish. I loved X-Factor, but my interest in the entire X-franchise flatlined after Messiah Complex. Fraction's Uncanny is just embarrassing, and my favourite characters went into limbo. The fantastic X-Force is the only book I really care about, and possibly Legacy, since Carey is apparently bringing some of the New X-Men on board to be mentored by Rogue. X-Factor is off on it's own... the Secret Invasion tie-in was abysmal but apparently the recent stuff has been gold.

I was pretty shocked by TW. The storyline had a bit of a Doctor Who quality to it, and I was fully expecting (naively perhaps) to have a big uplifting ending where the heroes save the day and everyone is brilliant. Instead, we got people murdering their own kids. Bit of a comedown. But the whole thing was very well written, and even though it was downbeat, that kind of tone suits TW better. And as you say, there was a bit more subtextual meat to than usual. I think it's safe to say the show has finally met it's potential. The status quo is absolutely destroyed though, where the hell can they take it from here? Is there even going to be a series 4?

I've been a bit wary of the DW finales, from what we've heard actor-wise, it seemed a little too similar to "Journey's End". Everyone coming back for an epic finale? Rose? Didn't we just get that? I hope they do go down the "Restless" route, that would be much more interesting, and a welcome change of pace. Excellent way to send off the Tenth Doctor as well. As you say though, I can't see them going that abstract, especially since it's Christmas and people will be wanting light entertainment.  Paul  730 11:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was better than Doctor Who, even though the writing for CoE was probably tighter than most DW episodes. I just prefer DW, it's more fun and optimistic, more enjoyable to watch even though it can be self-indulgent and a bit smug at times. Torchwood is just as powerful, but in more of a misanthropic way. It's nice though, to have three different shows to showcase different sides of the same universe. I'm going to be upset if the Donna tradegy gets undone the same way "Doomsday" was. I wonder in what capacity Jack will appear again? This can't be the last we see of him.

I'd be fine with an "All New, All Different" Torchwood led by Gwen (who's really grown on me lately, btw). We know the organization survives in some form because we've had future references to it. Hell, if "Fear Her" is to be believed, Torchwood is supposed to be public knowledge by 2012. I wonder if they'll follow their own continuity. I guess Torchwood 2 is still being run by Archie up here in Glasgow.

You seen/planning on seeing Bruno btw? I just saw it today and was pissing myself laughing all the way through it. The mass homophobia he exposes is rather disturbing at times though, which takes you out of the humour. It's quite interesting.  Paul  730 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I found the cage fight scene quite frightening if I'm honest. When the chair nearly hit him, I thought "holy shit, he's in real danger here". The scene was funny, but also quite uncomfortable, and strangely satisfying (it was fun seeing the bigots get tricked). I've heard some reviews where they question whether there's some inherent homophobia in the character of Bruno himself (ie, he's an offensive stereotype). I don't agree with that, he's clearly an ironic parody, but then I don't know Cohen's personal beliefs (he remains intentionally private doesn't he?). I've never seen Borat and don't really want to, the character just doesn't seem that funny to me, whereas I've always liked Bruno.

Aw, what happened to TW2, did it say? That's quite disappointing. I wonder why RTD is being so possessive over it. Aren't they cancelling TW and SJA once he leaves? Wasn't it you who told me there was only going to be another series of SJA? (Btw, David Tennant in SJA, fangasm much? I've still to see series 2.)  Paul  730 19:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't even know it was being aired over here. I'd rather wait for the DVDs to be honest, better to watch it all in a oner than have to follow it on TV. I don't even watch Desperate Housewives on TV anymore, and that's one of my favourite shows. Did you know Children of Earth is out on DVD already? I saw it today and was like "Wow, that was fast".  Paul  730 02:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, great finds for the Ianto article! It's nice to have some commentary on the whole death controversy. What'd you make of it all? I find it ridiculous, there wasn't this kind of reaction to Tosh and Owen's deaths, which, IMO, were much more tragic.  Paul  730 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It was exactly the same as when they killed Tara, Joss was suddenly a soul-destroying homophobe. There was even outrage when they killed Northstar, even though he was resurrected in the next issue. Apparently gay people should be immortal or something. It's quite a touchy subject, similar to the whole women in refrigerators thing, and my stance is that gay characters should be treated like any other. Lol, I love how you admit upfront that you're pushing an agenda with that section, how very NPOV of you. :P

I'm glad Dollhouse is good, it got some very mixed reviews at the start, didn't it? Joss has always been kind of a slow-burner. The next S8 is apparently out August 5, but I tend not to know until the week it comes out.  Paul  730 23:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally loving this big controversy, it's very entertaining and the Ianto article is looking better every day. :D Yeah, I've been reading the interviews as you add them. Though I must admit, there was one poster on AfterElton who made some pretty good points. About how Gwen/Rhys is a well-rounded, realistic, and successful relationship whereas Jack/Ianto is shallow, awkward and doomed. Maybe Torchwood isn't as gay-friendly as it makes out? It did make me think a little.

RTD is a smug bastard, yet I still kind of like him? I noticed in one of those interviews that he dodged the question sometimes. He seems to lie and contradict himself a lot as well, there's every possibility Ianto will be back next season. I do respect his "fuck the fans" mentality though, it's the right attitude to have.  Paul  730 02:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to be polite the first time in case he was just new to the site (I first came here looking for character bios, after all) but after he started swearing and getting aggressive, I was done with him.  Paul  730 23:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting those TW images, I prefer the darker S1 ones with the super-melodramatic posing. You forgot Tosh though! Don't you feel guilty?  Paul  730 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, my laptop died and I had to get it fixed so this is the first time I've been online in a week (I watched Jeremy Kyle I was so bored...). I can't say I paid much attention to the Othello reference. I've read the play, but it never clicked that it was about Buffy and Faith. Not sure where you would find a source, Slayage seemed like your best bet. What's that about Ianto? I only glanced at the article.

Buffy was very good, I agree. It was nice havng Oz back, and I loved all the werewolf mythology about channeling energy. It fits very well with Willow and Giles' discussion in "Lessons", and will probably play out in a big way later on. I am getting tired of Riley's inactivity though. I actually want to see more of him, which is strange for a character who used to suck the energy out of the show. Angel #23 was brilliant, but #24 (the first Drusilla issue) wasn't as good. It wasn't bad, just a little dull, I'll see how it plays out in the second issue. I plan on getting all future Angel comics, they actually look pretty good. Angel is kind of more entertaining than Buffy right now, even though Buffy is the better series. It's more instant gratification.  Paul  730 15:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've given my thoughts but it's hard for me to have a solid opinion because I've never even heard of the character before. How is he better known, "Tom" or "Mr Friendly"?  Paul  730 17:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I don't mind jumping in to give my opinion. What kind of information were you planning on putting in the caption? If it's something specific about Boe's appearance relating to Jack that would probably be fine. I think the article is generally fine, but before submitting it for FAR I would check that the spelling/punctuation is airtight. I've seen a couple of FAR where people are like "Oppose - numerous prose issues" and we don't want it ripped apart over petty typos.

Did you get Angel: Only Human? It was pretty good, a little expositional but it's a first issue. I love David Messina's art, I wish he'd done the fill-in stuff of AtF instead of Runge. I kind of hope the Burkle's find out the truth about Fred, it seems really cruel lying to them.  Paul  730 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, of course, I wasn't trying to say you can't spell. :) Hmm, I think that's a bit harsh on Only Human. I wouldn't call it fanfiction, it just gets a bit heavy-handed with the backstory that we already know. The direction is interesting. I don't have too much invested in IDW's Angel series. A lof of the upcoming stuff looks quite fun, but it's not an official part of the series the way AtF was. I just wish there was more of a distinction between this and the canon stuff, but obviously IDW aren't going to draw attention to that.  Paul  730 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt Joss is paying any attention to the Angel series when it comes to Buffy. Although he has shown some professional respect toward IDW, about not "treading on their toes". I believe in the Star Wars approach to canon, where it's not black and white and some titles are more canon than others. Clearly, the TV shows are more canon than the comics, since Joss said he'd ignore the comics for a movie. But S8, AtF, Tales, and Fray are more canon than any other comics, since Joss wrote/plotted them. Aftermath, etc, seem to exist on a "sort of canon" level, where they don't contradict anything but don't hold quite the same weight as the other stuff. I'm more torn about the Lynch/Urru stuff. The premise of Spike was foreshadowed in AtF so it's hard to just ignore it, you know?

I used to be quite strict with canon at Buffyverse Wiki, but I've since given up. I've decided it's better to just cover everything that doesn't contradict, and let the readers make their own minds up. Yeah, I'm also a fan of Willingham's ideas for Angel. Fables is a great series (albeit one I've never quite gotten into) so hopefully the Angel book will benefit from his talents.  Paul  730 21:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Urgh, I hate dipping in and out of in-universe perspective. It's so inconsisant, just pick one already. I'd rather just use in-line citations linking to which story the info comes from, and then discuss the canoncity on the story page. That might be confusing for newbies, but I just hate inconsistant perspective, it drives me mad. We could possibly have some kind of warning template when discussing non-canon stuff, Wookieepedia do that and I try to emulate their style as much as possible at Wikia. I know what you mean about the Sarah Jane article. If something is that contradictory (like Spike killing Sophie Whatsherface instead of Nikki Wood), it should probably just be removed from the biography and discussed somewhere else in the article. Yeah, Tardis Wiki is a mess. I remember I rewrote half of the Martha Jones article, then when I came back a few months later, it had fallen apart again. They never crop their images either, which annoys me. I still use it all the time though.

Hey, you want to see a messy Wikia, go to the Horror Film Wiki. I hate that site, but I go there because it's the only place I can write in-universe articles for Michael and Jason. You're a casual Halloween fan, what d'you think of this article I wrote for Michael. It's based on the canon timeline, I covered the Jamie Lloyd movies on another page. I was motivated to do it because the Halloween comics are brilliant and I wanted to get all the continuity straight in my head.  Paul  730 22:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Halloween continuity is such a bitch, it was great therapy to get it all down on paper (or the internet, same thing) and make it look organised. I've had a few problems with editors on that site though; Halloween fans in general are not a fan of the split timeline and prefer to link the films together, so there's been threats to delete the pages. Oh well, who cares, I wrote it for me, not them. Halloween 4 - 6 aren't that bad. There's some good characters and atmosphere, but you're talking to a fanboy here so it's my job to stick up for them. You should at least see 4, that's a cult favourite.

Old Times has no official placement, it could easily be set in Buffy season 6 (if you assume Spike went to L.A.) I wouldn't mention it on Spike's article, since he has more important things going on at that time, but I would definitely use it for Halfrek's article since it explains a lot of her backstory. I've not read the Fallen Angel crossover and don't plan to but I've heard good things. I think it's set during Angel S5, I guess it could be mentioned on Illyria's article (though I personally don't count it).  Paul  730 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it would definitely go in "Literature" for Illyria's Wikipedia article. From an out-of-universe perspective, it's actually pretty interesting and notable as the first multi-franchise crossover the Buffyverse has been involved in. Lol, you say it couldn't be canon but it so could. The Avengers have fought the Justice League, Ash has fought Xena and Spider-Man. Those stories were canon. It's possible Illyria could break out of the Buffyverse and into the general "Omniverse", to crossover with just about anyone.

Funny comic. Hmm, you say there's clearly a spell at work but it's not explicit. I've not been happy with how the Harmony/vampire story has been handled in S8, so to write it off as a spell would be very welcome.  Paul  730 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the social commentary was people believing what the media spoon-feeds them. Which is true, but it could've been delivered in a more plausible, intelligent way. I hope it is a spell. Having not seen Dollhouse, I never noticed until I saw your edits at the Buffyverse Wiki. I think it's cool as well, it's like when Firefly actors appeared in the Buffyverse, gives a nice sense of community.  Paul  730 23:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you see that the "Fan reaction" at Ianto Jones is being accused of POV tone? They've already removed a bunch of information. What do you think? I reckon the section could probably be condensed slightly (it's rather big) but deleting sources is going too far IMO.  Paul  730 13:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're totally right, the section is fine. As you say, you've been adding all avaliable sources, not just cherry picking the ones you agree with. They're just annoyed because the section isn't a gushing advertisement for their campaign.  Paul  730 23:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the template. We refuted their concerns, and as you say, it could stay their forever while we argue in circles. We'll see what happens.  Paul  730 00:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it, I think it's fine there for now. Might move it into the Characterization section later. Good find though. Speaking of which, great job finding a free image of Boe! That makes it much less controversial, and it looks great. Adds a nice bit of colour to the article next to the gloomy images of Jack. I definitely want to fix up the Angel article (lol at your reason for wanting to edit it), I've had his appearances section sitting in my sandbox forever. Do you have any OOU info on the character? Even just getting rid of all that bloody plot and OR from his article would be satisfying. I also want to tidy up Spike's article, I think working on his Literature section would be interesting, given all the solo titles he has.  Paul  730 00:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I've heard of it but have no idea what it is. Where can I see it? Lol at Joss' parody of himself. Hmmmm, very interesting theory about Twilight! Don't think anyone's made that possible connection yet. I don't think it's true (why would Angel randomly dress as a gimp and fight Buffy), but it's a cool idea. Who do you think Twilight is? My money's on a male Buffy-doppelganger, have I told you that theory?  Paul  730 15:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How come you never post at SlayAlive? It's a good forum and you have cool opinions. Yeah, I'm convinced that the betrayer is something something weird and metaphorical like Buffy betraying herself. Perhaps a male version of Buffy could personify the idea that the Slayer army is betraying what the Slayer is ultimately meant to stand for. Something like that, I haven't got it fully figured out yet obviously. Also, in the Buffyverse, spells usually come at a price, so my theory is Twilight was created as "the price" for the Slayer activation spell; some bastard misogynist to balance out all the powerful females. My other theory was Twilight was the price for creating Dawn; when the monks gave the Key human form, Twilight was a side effect, a kind of evil twin brother for Dawn. Future Xander is just a half-hearted theory because, as you say, time travel has been established. I'm also leaning towards Ethan Rayne; his appearance in "TLWH" feels pointless and unresolved, Voll was Twilight's minion so could easily have faked his death, and Ethan being in Buffy's dreamspace could account for his knowledge of things he couldn't possibly know (like the Caleb Scythe move).

I think I'll look for Commentary tonight, it sounds fun.  Paul  730 15:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I finally watched Commentary (been watching Everybody Loves Raymond DVDs and my friend at work inflicted Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus on me) and you're right, it is funny. Not sure it's better than Dr. Horrible though. The only songs I loved were "Zack's Flavour" and "Nobody's Asian in the Movies" ("Do your laundry, thank you prease" - I nearly died), I've listened to those a few dozen times. I also like the fact that the lispy gay guy got his own song. Your favourites?  Paul  730 01:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just finished giving my thoughts at SlayAlive. I liked it, particularly the Willow character development. I'm also not fazed by Dawn/Xander, which seems to be controversial. The suppression of magic storyline is more interesting that I thought it would be, and you're right, the artwork was really impressive (nice little background details). I'm less keen on the "Storyteller" sequelness, what with that and the "we are as gods" joke last issue (waste of panel space much?), this arc feels a little too much like Jane Espenson's Greatest Hits. £10 says Jonathan'll be resurrected in the next two issues. :/  Paul  730 19:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I love your theory about Dawn/Xander being the culmination of Buffy/Xander (I copied part of your comment over to SlayAlive). Very cool observation. Yeah, when I read these Scottish characters like Leah and Moira MacTaggart, it makes me realise what horribly inaccrate stereotypes the other characters probably are as well. It'd be nice if someone did for Scotland what Torchwood did for Wales. Jane Espenson isn't my favourite Buffy writer, I must admit. "Storyteller" was amazing, but "Superstar" was pretty rubbish IMO. Nice idea, but I usually skip it during rewatches.  Paul  730 20:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Like you, I prefer larger paragraphs, but I compared against a couple of other FAs, and some paragraphs could stand to be a little shorter. The Face of Boe section is rather large, and could possibly work better as a multi-paragraph sub-section. You seemed to play with this idea in your sandbox and I think it could work. The relationships section could also be broken up more; I was thinking, how about we have separate paragraphs for Gwen and Ianto? There's enough information on each of them, and possibly another "miscellaneous relationships" paragraph (Martha, Owen, Tosh, etc). Might require a bit of rearranging though. I'd also try and split the third paragraph of the Critical reception, possibly break all the AfterElton stuff off on it's own, leaving a smaller paragraph above it.

Need anything else, just ask. I've got the FAR on my watchlist so I'll be following it.  Paul  730 23:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, I think you've addressed the big paragraph problem. None of them are uncomfortably long anymore IMO.  Paul  730 05:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your solution seems fine. It would be impossible to cover every bit of merchandise the character appears on, so mentioning some generic action figures is enough IMO. Obviously, it would be preferable to have third party sources covering each individual product, but I don't think it's a glaring omission; the Jason article doesn't mention every single action figure. How do you think the FAR's going by the way?  Paul  730 20:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please split day 1, day 2, day 3, etc. into sections to make it easier for me to edit from my cellphone.--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 22:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually they make it easier for me to edit from my cellphone as I don't have to load up the entire long section and finding out that the long texts has filled up my editable space and I can't type any further. In my opinion, it will help other viewers to skip to a particular "day".

P.s. I also live in the Uk, specifically in Watford, Hertfordshire. It would be great working with you! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you include the plot line regarding Ianto Jones. By the way, what you recon will happen tomorow? And how will the story end.--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought he contacted Gwen. In fact the promenation (is the right spelling?) the arrival of 456 took place in front of him.--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 00:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That means a lot of aprents and teachers will use the site less Bashereyre (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. Bashereyre (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a fairly heavy edit to the List of Torchwood items recently, as the page was just a mess. You then reverted the entire thing with an edit summary of, "While your clean-up did some good things, it needs reverting. You went against the Manual of Style by italicizing episode titles. Episodes in quotes, serials in italics. Simple formula." As a result of your reversion, the list went back to its previous state, where half of it had italicized titles and the other half didn't—which I can't honestly say was an improvement.

I'd looked for the style guide when I'd made the changes and hadn't been able to find it. And given that the page contained some titles one way and some another, I couldn't tell which was correct from the existing article. Consequently, I (mentally) flipped a coin and guessed, and well, guessed wrong.

I've reverted back to my version although this time I think I've designated all the episode titles correctly. If you check it and I've missed some, please: let me know (or just fix it); don't just revert back to the old broken version, ok? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research basically boils down to 'guessing'. I didn't post anything unverifiable: He can be killed (temporarily), he does come back to life after a short period and (as per part 1-2 of CoE) he has survived being blown up. If you suggest it doesn't belong there, so be it, but I don't see it as original research myself. HalfShadow

Endorse redirect, good call. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, realised my mistake as soon as I made it, you beat me to a revert. magnius (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for hearing me out regarding the content of the Fan Reaction section on the Ianto Jones wikipedia page. I've made a draft of the points which I think belong in a separate section. I'm currently waiting on more feedback from the community, but would also love to hear your reply to what we have thus far: Moments after the death of Ianto Jones during Torchwood’s third series, a campaign to bring him back was started thanks to networking sites such as LiveJournal, Twitter and Facebook. Wales Online At the heart of this movement is www.SaveIantoJones.com, which had been pivotal in organizing the “The Great Coffee Protest.” This protest encourages fans to send coffee, along with postcards and letters of complaint, to the BBC, as tribute to Ianto’s status as the “coffee boy”. Fans have engaged in a multitude of additional protests, through groups on Livejournal and Facebook, petitions, and videos on Youtube. Doctor Who blog Via the Save Ianto Jones website, fans are given the opportunity to donate to the BBC charity “Children in Need” in honor of the character. The fundraising site states that "Though we, his devoted fans, still hope that he'll come back…we mourn him. In the series, he died saving the children of Earth; so it seems fitting to honor his memory by helping the Children in Need." As of July 31, 2009, £4,172 has been donated in his name. Coventry Telegraph

In an interview with io9 on July 28, 2009, creator Russell T Davies was asked about the controversy surrounding Ianto’s death and the consequential coffee protest. He replied “There's a campaign, because he was a coffee boy. But do you know how many packets of coffee they've received so far? Nine. So I think people writing online might sound like thousands of people, but they are nine.” io9 However, those involved in the movement believe that this number is much higher due to a post tallying the coffee sent within the community. Coventry Telegraph

When asked about the backlash in a separate interview with Michael Austiello, Russell T Davies said "It's not particularly a backlash. What's actually happening is, well, nothing really to be honest. It's a few people posting online and getting fans upset". He also stated that the character was gone for good, and that his resurrection would devalue the "entire plot." He recommended that fans who wish to stop watching the show should watch Supernatural, and to read poetry if they "can't handle drama".[46] Following these statements, the Save Ianto Jones website encouraged fans to contact only the BBC Wales and not Davies, and temporarily presented on its front page the message “Mr. Davies has made it clear in recent interviews that he views his fans with contempt, and as disposable, which saddens us" and asked not to be "abused".[59]

At Comic-Con 2009, a fan claimed that Davies “hurt” a lot of internet fans with his decision to kill Ianto, which she called "out of line.” Davies replied that he would not change his mind regarding the decision, then added "I've got to be blunt about this, there have been campaigns to send packets of coffee to BBC Wales in protest. There have been nine packets sent. I'm not taking the mickey, but that's a very small number." Executive producer Julie Gardner stated "We want people to be engaged, discuss and not always agree with us. At the end of the day, I make drama to support each author's vision. It's not a democracy. Whether people like it or not, it's storytelling."[60] Simon Brew of Den of Geek has criticised the Internet campaigns to resurrect the character, citing that the show would “lose far more credibility” if he were brought back. Brew also expressed doubt that the fans stating they would boycott a fourth series will do so. He summarised: "Torchwood now needs to continue to have the courage of its convictions, and for that to happen, the reset switch simply isn't an option."[55]

I’ve created the first two paragraphs from the media coverage listed on the Save Ianto Jones website. Please let me know if these are legitimate. I’ve also included everything already in the Fan reactions section which pertains directly to the Save Ianto Jones campaign. I’ve changed some of the wording. I’m not sure how much of this you wrote, but in case you are offended here are my reasons:

“Following these statements…not to be "abused".”--In its original context, the old quote from Save Ianto Jones’s front page makes it seem like it was changed in response to RTD saying the character was gone for good. This was not the case: it was changed in response to RTD’s statements about them not being able to handle drama, and his recommendation for them to watch Supernatural with the implication that they only liked Ianto due to his looks and relationship.

“Davies “hurt” a lot of internet fans…”—just tweaked it to make it more closely resemble the article being cited, as the word hurt was originally the only direct quote.

“Simon …isn't an option."—A few changes here. I wanted to start with Simon Brew’s name as he is not representative of the entire site. Also took out the quote about “all the good work” as it was originally part of a question.

I feel that the Wales Online article, the issues with Jim Moran, and the Digital Spy issue should be kept separate, as they represent a spirit of backlash which has had no place in the Save Ianto Jones community. I’d also prefer to keep references to “de-gaying” Torchwood and to Ianto and Jack’s relationship out of this section. I do not speak for the whole community, but my motivation in becoming involved with this has nothing to do with Ianto’s sexuality, and everything to do with just really liking his character.

Thanks again. --Charsea (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I've made the changes you suggested, and would like your opinion on this version:

Moments after the death of Ianto Jones during Torchwood’s third series, a campaign to bring him back was started through networking sites such as LiveJournal, Twitter and Facebook. Wales Online. The resulting website, www.SaveIantoJones.com, has organized a protest which encourages fans to send coffee, along with postcards and letters of complaint, to the BBC, a reference to Ianto’s status as the “coffee boy”. Via the Save Ianto Jones website, fans are also campaigning to raise money for the BBC charity “Children in Need” in honor of the character. The fundraising site states that "Though we, his devoted fans, still hope that he'll come back…we mourn him. In the series, he died saving the children of Earth; so it seems fitting to honor his memory by helping the Children in Need." As of July 31, 2009, £4,172 has been donated in his name. Coventry Telegraph

In an interview with io9 on July 28, 2009, creator Russell T Davies was asked about the controversy surrounding Ianto’s death and the consequential campaign. He replied “There's a campaign, because he was a coffee boy. But do you know how many packets of coffee they've received so far? Nine. So I think people writing online might sound like thousands of people, but they are nine.” io9 However, those involved in the movement believe that this number is much higher due to a post tallying the coffee sent within the community. Coventry Telegraph...

I've changed most of the exposition, and can see how it read as a bit hokey. The only thing I didn't change was "moments after" as it is taken directly from the Wales Online article (I can put it in quotation marks, if you would prefer). And I disagree about the implied causality. As the article is now, the quote from Save Ianto Jones is very much separated from the remarks which actually sparked it. I also feel that its placement, particularly when prompted by the word "later" makes it seem like an overreaction to RTD saying that Ianto was gone for good. If you don't mind, I would move it where I did in the previous posting.

Let me know what you think. --Charsea (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add: by all means keep the part about "de-gaying" Torchwood in the Fans reaction section! I agree that the issue is pivotal to some of those protesting Ianto's death, and if you are interested there is a very well presented article on AfterElton comparing his death to that of Tara on Buffy. I would simply prefer that it not be large part of the Save Ianto Jones campaign section. Yes, some of those involved are disappointed by the portrayal of their relationship in CoE, and upset by its end, but I cannot stress enough that this is about Ianto, not Janto. --Charsea (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah! Just noticed it there. Also it seems as though the article stands as I presented it. The Save Ianto Jones community is waiting on a request for the actual amount of coffee received by the BBC thus far; once this information becomes available it will be submitted to a proper media outlet and hopefully that can be added to the page. In the mean time, do you have any more suggestions for or issues with the section as I've written it? --Charsea (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Great! Well if any more bits of editorial prose jump out at you, just give me a heads up and I will change them. Also you are free to incorporate the Coventry Telegraph article into the general fan reaction section, although I feel like the bulk of it more directly pertains to Save Ianto Jones. If you can think of anything else in that article which you feel should be added to the Save Ianto Jones section then let me know, and I will definitely incorporate it. I've actually going to be away from my computer until this evening, but hopefully will have time then to actually add this section to the wikipedia page so long as you have no more issues with it. Is it okay if I remove the sections from the fan reaction which I've put in the Save Ianto Jones reaction or would you rather do that once you read over what I've added in the context of the entire reaction section? --Charsea (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see Bignole's point about keeping Save Ianto Jones as part of the fans reactions, particularly with the new title of the section. I also agree with all the changes suggested for the first paragraph. I would still like to submit the changes I've suggested, and present the Save Ianto Jones campaign along with the media and RTD's response to the campaign as group of subsequent paragraphs. I've been reading over what I wrote, and I really do not believe I've portrayed anything in an inaccurate or biased manner; I've included all the critique of campaign specifically. Reading over the section now, I think it would be best placed either at the end of the section, with the information presented twice deleted, or in the middle. I'm leaning towards the middle, as the campaign began after everything with Moran's twitter and was established by the time the Wale's Online article came out. --Charsea (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made the changes. Please let me know what you think, and please let me address any problems you might have. I made a few minor adjustments; I thought there was enough information about the homophobia accusations to warrant its own paragraph. I also have a few suggestions which I didn't want to edit without referring to you. Walker's idea about the show being changed beyond recognition was actually a reference to the move to BBC1 and not Ianto's death. Also in the sentence before that postings on Facebook are referred to. Would you mind putting a source for that? --Charsea (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add: I was reading the io9 article about Moran's blog and think it is very important to mention that Moran himself stated that the negative comments were a minority, and that the "vast majority" of commenters were "upset, angry and shocked" but expressed themselves "without making it personal." --Charsea (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being nitpicky, but I wanted to let you know that I've added in the quote from Moran's blog. It's almost word for word what he wrote, so hopefully you will think it's fair. I've also moved the io9 quote about homophobia to the paragraph about accusations of homophobia as I think it fits better there. I've added a reference to the poll which GDL was responding to when he said to trust the writers. I've also removed the words "angrily" and "incredulously" from the passage describing Moran's blog, as neither he nor the io9 article have described his reaction as such. I'll leave in the facebook and Walker quote for now. I actually think if you want to use that line it would be best moved to critical reception, as it is her own opinion, and make sure it is noted that her fear was that the move to BBC1 would changed how their relationship was portrayed in CoE, and that after watching it she feels the relationship was not toned down. --Charsea (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks again for hearing me out on this, and for all your contributions. It was great collaborating with you! --Charsea (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The first thing that jumps out at me is the first sentence. I would remove "negative", as it can indirectly set the reader in one mindset as soon as they start reading. You can just as easily say something like, "Ianto's death in the third series prompted fans of the show to express their displeasure of the death of Ianto" (or something like that) - and be very specific as to what they did. Allow the quotes and comments from others provide the qualifiers. We really shouldn't be doing it for them. I think a lot of the time there is an instinct to go ahead and summarize others' reactions into easy to understand terms or emotional responses, but it's all perception. Here is another, "fans expressed anger towards creator Russell T Davies", I would just say what they did. Or, "James McCarthy of Wales Online harshly criticized the fan response", you don't need the "harshly criticized". You could just say, "In response to the fan reaction, Wales Online's James McCarthy said, "...."". If you remove all of the summarized fan reactions, and just leave their specific actions you still have the same section but less Wiki interpretation.

I would also retitle the section to "Reaction to Ianto's death" - or something like that. "Fan reaction" isn't very professional looking, even though that is what the section basically talks about. The title just suggests that we are inviting any ol' fan to come in an give their opinion. You could to "Public reaction to Ianto's death" - something. The title of the section should reflect what the section is about, and that's Ianto's death. It's not about any other reaction except that of his death. I would go with the first one, or something like it, because it allows you the opportunity to include reactions from professionals (whether the creative team on the show, or critics).

That's my initial reaction from looking over the section. Is there anything specific you wanted me to address? I agree that if you can find positive reactions to his death, then they should get equal weight, simply because Wiki has to remain as neutral as possible, but even WP:NPOV says that sometimes you have to recognize what the minority viewpoint is (i.e., if 10% of the rans have no problem with Ianto's death, but 90% did, then 10% is a huge minority and probably don't need to be mentioned except in passing to state that not everyone had a problem with the death).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, my thoughts are that that would be undue weight on the subject. Fans are fans, whether they are organized or not. You only need one section to discuss the reaction to Ianto's death, IMO, and that should include reactions from fans and professionals. If it's a lot of info, you could separate it into "public reaction" and "professional reaction" (better headers of course), but all public reaction should be together.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be very welcome!  —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  03:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone is removing the LGBT category again. --DrBat (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is. --DrBat (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I'm going to start a new consensus after the page is (hopefully) protected. CTJF83Talk 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine if we slapped a Q on the end of the category for queer and questioning. CTJF83Talk 23:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! You commented on the last discussion about whether to include a Category:Fictional LGBT characters on the Stewie Griffin article. We have a new discussion going for an updated consensus. Your comments here would be appreciated. Thank you, CTJF83Talk 03:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to comment in this deletion discussion. Ikip (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently joined Facebook and added you, just so you're not like "who is this guy?" How are you anyway, been a while since we last chatted. How are you enjoying Season Eight? I have to say, I'm getting pretty sick of it. The last issue didn't do anything for me and I'm kinda losing interest (I'll keep getting it though). I enjoy it when I'm actually reading it, but afterwards I stop caring.  Paul  730 02:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't Jeanty is phoning it in, but I think his style doesn't suit this story. It's supposed to be a gritty, realisic battle, and Jeanty's bright cartooniness doesn't work. Also, his strength is close-up emotional scenes... his characters become kind of faceless during huge action scenes. Have you been keeping up with Angel? It's much more enjoyable at the moment, Spike was transformed into Angel last issue.  Paul  730 09:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:ToshMaryKiss.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. magnius (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:ToshMaryKiss.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So what did you think of Doctor Who? I saw your reaction on Facebook, what about it did you find "flimsy"? I was disappointed, mainly because the spoilers promised Rose, Jack, Sarah Jane, Luke, Jessica Hynes, and most importantly... Russell Tovey. Very let down not to see any of them. I assume/hope they'll be in Part Two, but I don't know how, since all humans have been eradicated. I still liked the episode, but it felt more like set-up than a satisfying episode in it's own right. It was a bit dour for a Christmas special, but I suppose that's appropiate for David's swan song (I loved his speech about not wanting to die).

Oh, and merry Christmas, by the way. :D  Paul  730 20:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting theory about the other characters, I hadn't thought of that, though it's very obvious as you say. How will all those characters come together in the space of an hour though, while wrapping up existing plot threads? Apparently the Doctor is supposed to save Luke from being run over or something, according to paparazzi spies.

Ah, illiterate 12 year olds. I feel more sorry for them than annoyed, because their well-intended efforts will always be deleted.

Dollhouse may be good, but Buffy is still unsatisfying. The Willow one-shot was interesting, but left more questions than answers. And the new preview suggests another illogical plot hole between stories.

Btw, what did you make of "The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith"? I saw it a while ago, but rewatched it this morning. I found it a bit slow and flabby, but the crossover fanservice was satisfying and the Trickster is always cool.  Paul  730 21:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love the Trickster to appear in DW (he had that non-appearance in "Turn Left") but he should remain SJ's archenemy. He's like her Daleks. (Who's Jack's archenemy? Gray was rubbish, TW needs better villains). Ditto about getting excited about the silly mythology.

The Willow one-shot is a weird, mystical mindwalk thing with lots of metaphor-speak that only smart people will get. I was slightly confused but I did enjoy it. There's a beautiful and very gratifying scene that I loved which seems to have angered a portion of the fanbase, guess which ones. It was a bit disappointing because you're still left wondering what the fuck is going on. It does suceed in making Saga Vasuki a full-fledged character though, instead of just a naked snake lady.

I just watched the trailer, and the preview with Timothy Dalton and the Time Lords. Looks amazing, but still no Russell Tovey goshdarnit! I need my George fix.  Paul  730 22:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack/Alonzo would be wonderful, though since Davies already tried to kill Alonzo off in "Stolen Earth", it might not work out well for Jack. I'm still bitter Tovey isn't the new Doctor, he's the best little actor in the world. :)

Davies and co rarely reference these world-destroying events and when they do it's usually coy. Like you, I'd rather see more continuity between the three shows, even in subtle ways. It's the same in the Buffyverse, why are the Scoobies not reacting to the fact that Angel is played by Nicholas Cage in a movie?

I saw Wilf the pilot and thought it was ridiculous and cool. I like how DW gives the oldies like Harriet and Wilf a chance to be cool and heroic, you wouldn't see that in American shows. I'm confused about the whole Time War thing... how is it happening now when it already happened? Does it take place outside time, or in different points of time? Head hurts.  Paul  730 22:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I was doing something else when I got your message and totally forgot to reply. What didn't you like about it? I think it's a bit like "Restless"... leaves you thinking "WTF?" when you first see but has hidden depth. This fan review kind of made me view it in a new light, it's quite an amazing abstract character study of Willow. Not very satisfying at face-value, but definitely worth it.  Paul  730 01:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You have a point about Joss' writing, it can come across a little vague and meaningless. He's admitted himself that half the metaphors in "Restless" were unintentional, it was just abstract enough that people fill in the blanks themselves. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think you're a little harsh on poor RTD. The foreshadowing is a bit loose, but it can be effective. "Bad Wolf" was really creepy, and the Saxon arc was nicely set up (series 3 is still my favourite). I think series 4's foreshadowing was pretty cheap though, he threw in everything but the kitchen sink. A lot of people seem to really hate RTD's writing, but I don't think it's that bad. He's a smug git but I enjoy his episodes.  Paul  730 15:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year. So what did you think of it? I wasn't very impressed by most of the episode... the whole Galifrey plot made no sense, and the characters weren't very interesting (why are we wasting screen time on funny cactus people during Tennant's last episode?). It was all a bit dull, really. However, the Doctor/Wilf scenes and the last ten minutes made up for it. The companion scenes at the end were like multiple fangasms. Mickey/Martha... Jack/Alonso... so exciting. So... poor episode, but lovely send off for Ten. Not keen on Eleven's introduction.  Paul  730 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll appreciate it more on rewatches, I spend most of the episode huffing about the other characters not being there. I never heard about the Martha/Mickey rumours, though I have thought they'd make a nice couple (the two rejects). Poor Tom though, wonder what happened there. I thought about the "Stolen Earth" sketch as well, nice to finally see that materialize. Totally agree about the Rose scene being perfect, I'm sick of the parallel world being opened up again and again, and it was nice to end things back on the Powell Estate. How are those things you mentioned continuity problems?

I think the writers did a great job of putting the fans' feelings about Tennant onscreen. It was lovely to see the character treated so respectfully. Smith is weird looking! Do you not think he feels like Tennant-lite? I never noticed the resurrection gauntlet, that's interesting. I was confused about Donna, are we supposed to infer that she eventually regenerated into that mysterious Time Lady? Weird. I like that the Doctor officially labelled her his "best friend". :D  Paul  730 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Linky? There was always going to be outrage from the silly Ianto fans (the Kennedy Factor?) but I would have thought Jack/Alonso would go down well with the slashers. Personally, I adore the pairing, but as you say it's probably best left to our imaginations, rather than continued in TW or something. Though I certainly wouldn't complain if it was. I don't think Alonso would be that out-of-place in TW, it's not like he's a cat person or a Slitheen or something. Did you see John Barrowman plugging himself as the gay man of the decade or something? I read that in the papers today.  Paul  730 22:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I may have asked you for help before: I'm rewriting the Russell T Davies article; the current progress can be seen here (I've paused over Christmas as my RTD biography is at university). Seeing as you're actually better than me at this, could you help find sources for the recognition and reception section? Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I forgot the part about him taking cues from Joss. Although, really, Buffy had an influence on most 2000s science fiction. Incidentally, how far are you into Dollhouse? As far as the US, or as far as SciFi over here have taken it? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pokity poke. I'm getting to the point where I'm about to write the reception section (all I need to write is the post-DW career—which is pretty much the OBE, arranging Tennant's announcement, More Gay Men, and moving to LA—and fill in the citations), and, as I said, I need your help. First things first: what should we include in the section? I don't really intend for it to be more than three or four paragraphs long... but we'll need to cover any BAFTAs, NTAs, Pink List inclusions, and the OBE... do you think the article would be okay with that, or do we need a few newspaper articles or will it be just fine? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was mostly in the finding of the sources critiquing his writing style, because I'm totally rubbish at finding non-temporal reception sources. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mind you, we could still add Rusty's DWM awards for "Greatest Contribution" (22.62% compared to Verity Lambert's 22.49%). Speaking of which, it kind of annoyed me how low "Midnight" ranked. It's really underrated and should've been somewhere around 14th rather than languishing in 43rd. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So what do you think of the reveal? A lot of fans are already throwing the obligatory hissy fits/threatening to drop the book, I assume you have a more level-headed reaction?  Paul  730 23:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people are more upset about the spoilers than the actual twist. I don't really care, surprises are nice but they only last a few seconds. The story's still the same.

Yeah, I remember you guessing Angel cos of his absence in his own title (which is looking good right now... Willingham's writing isn't perfect but it's a good direction). Like you, I'm impressed and surprised by the cooperation of DH and IDW. Some people think Allie is lying, and only contacted IDW as an afterthought, but then there's this rather sexy promo for the new Spike series. The Buffyverse is looking good! :D  Paul  730 15:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to merge the two articles down the line, but in the meantime well done for constructing that Revelation section!  Paul  730 19:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, "Turbulence" was excellent. So nice to have a scene of the characters just talking, rather than over-the-top plot twists and battles. Much needed. I'm finally feeling some connection to these characters again. It was also nice to the consequences of war - the scene with the soldier - which was glossed over completely in "Retreat". I'm also rather liking Xander/Dawn... was pretty indifferent to them before but Xander's little speech made me aw.

Not heard any of these rumours but any continuation of Torchwood sounds good to me. What's supposed to be happening?  Paul  730 18:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I justify listing him as Christopher by precedent. Joss Whedon has a habit of making odd alternative nicknames, like Xander from Alexander, instead of Alex. Fred from Winifred, rather than Winnie. Thus, Topher from Christopher, rather than Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unacorda (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Galatea (Justice League Unlimited). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galatea (Justice League Unlimited). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Zythe. Thanks for your edits tonight to the Skins article. I'm writing to let you know that I've redacted the details you added to the Cast and characters section of the article. This is because I've been trying to bring the article up to Good Article standard, and in doing so have had to remove all plot details from that section. However, I really admired your writing and prose, and thought it was outright beautifully put - so I'd love if you could add your talent to the Plot synopsis, instead, which is the current bane of the article. It needs to be much shorter, and concise, like your summaries of each character's development. If you could help out here, I'd be hugely grateful. :) Regards — Pretzels ^Hii! 01:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic work! I will endeavour to keep it in this tip-top condition. — Pretzels ^Hii! 15:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Barbas (Charmed), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Blueboy96 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Crone (Charmed). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crone (Charmed). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to avoid an argument, I figured we could discuss the status of the Cordelia Chase page. My figuring for the section is: the page as it currently is is not easy to read, very much a wall-of-text. The info is in there, to be sure, but it's difficult to get anything specific out of. Hence why I think it needs to be split up a little more. Powers and abilities may seem a silly place to start, but it's easy, not to mention would improve consistency across the other character pages for Buffy and Angel. -- Allan5366 (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A fine point; it is, fundamentally, just a page about a character from a TV show. But the fact remains that people look at it, presumably trying to glean information for whatever reason. And the fact that you edit pages shows you want Wikipedia to be as easy to use as possible. And doesn't other pages being bad just mean that there's a lot of work to do? -- Allan5366 (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you were having mental health problems. I've been having a weird time of it lately as well. I've recently come to terms with the fact that I'm asexual as well as gay, and have come out to a few friends about it. It's proving to be a roadblock with a relationship I'm trying to get off the ground, and the whole thing has got me a bit down at the moment. The past few days have been - to use a cliche I hate - a bit of an emotional rollercoaster and I don't see it ending the way I'd like it to. :/

Buffy-wise, you're not missing much. The current story appears to be terribly written and I'm completely burned out with the whole thing. Joss might be able to salvage this series with some clever tricks, but I'm sadly pessimistic. It's annoying, because I've become such a hater over at SlayAlive, and I don't want to be. If you've dropped the issues, you might be better off waiting until the story is (finally) over and reading it all together to save yourself the confusion/frustration the rest of us have suffered.

I bought Dollhouse season one and only watched the first two episodes. It was okay, nothing that exciting. I've got other boxsets to watch now so I probably won't go back to it anytime soon. My non-boyfriend lent me True Blood which I've been planning to check out for a while. You a fan? How have you enjoyed this latest season of Doctor Who? While David Tennant firmly remains my favourite Doctor and I feel loyalty to the Russel T Davies era, I think the writing has been a lot tighter and more original this year. Matt Smith is excellent, though Amy seems to be falling into the same trap Rose did by becoming a slightly irritating Mary Sue. I still like her though.

Those essays sound excellent and it's good to hear you're still enthusiastic about editing. I think I've quietly retired from Wikipedia to be honest. I'd like to edit but between work and personal shit I don't really have the time or energy anymore. I still check in occasionally though.  Paul  730 23:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re this – I feel I should point out that in 'The End of Time' she uses mental energy to kill or stun several of the Master's clones. I suggest, therefore, that your assertion that she has "no Time Lord traits" is incorrect – at any rate, I've never seen a normal human do that sort of thing on or off Doctor Who. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 06:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, thanks for the assumption of bad faith in your revert! ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 06:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Child Sacrifice.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)